EA Staff (Retired)
DICE Team
@Killrep wrote:
@PartWeIshthe class changes are a good step in the right direction but i feel weapons need to be catagorized also. This would prevent the "meta" weapon style gameplay where a whole server runs one gun but other weapons such as the DMRs, shotguns, and the other misc. Weapons being available for all classes
What we've seen in the past is that locking weapons behind Classes means that players become locked to a Class that they might not want to play, just for a specific weapon. Our current thinking is return to Classes via Class Equipment and Gadgets while keeping weaponry available for all.
@CantGetRight wrote:
Please don't give into the ones that want a class structure from older games. I like the freedom we have now.
Is there anything else that you would change?
@MarvelousXT wrote:
Just no, why? After all these change for free of choice now we're back to the old class locked one? I never bought the game If I know soon this game will become like any other previous Battlefield titles. When I bought this game, I specifically want that freedom not like this?!!!
Is there any specific point that you dislike about returning to Class Equipment and Gadgets?
@ragnarok013 wrote:
Specialists are perhaps the most divisive topic that I’ve ever seen in the history of Battlefield and I’ve played every title. Due to their divisiveness the best and only realistic way to address the very controversial Specialist issue is to run two parallel versions of AOW concurrently with full XP and progression and allow the community to play the version that they and their community members like. Have one Specialist version of AOW with the Specialists separated into classes change, and one Classic Battlefield Class based version of AOW without Specialists using generic soldier models with the well done 2042 AI class skins from the base game applied to the Battlefield 3 classes that are already in game, without Specialist gadgets, and with weapon and gadget restrictions. In the traditional class based AOW keep both gadget slots open to customize load outs like Battlefield 3 had instead of forcing one gadget to be non-changeable like 2042 incorrectly does to BF3 classes in Portal.
With Specialists Gadgets, do you mean both their Speciality and Trait, or just one of these?
@Straatford87 wrote:What we've seen in the past is that locking weapons behind Classes means that players become locked to a Class that they might not want to play, just for a specific weapon. Our current thinking is return to Classes via Class Equipment and Gadgets while keeping weaponry available for all.
I don't know how to say this gently, so...people need to get over it and you guys need to stop relying so much on analytics on this one. If you free up weapons for all classes then you'll just have a handful of "meta" guns that everybody uses no matter what. Forcing guns into a specific class furthers the role of that class (such as suppressing fire from support LMGs) and forces the dev team to balance the weapons in such a way where different kinds of weapons are viable in specific scenarios.
If somebody only wants to play with an M16 and plays assault only...then so what? Let them do that. You don't need to overhaul a staple of your franchise just to appease to the complainers. Stick to what made the game popular in the first place. You struck the perfect balance in BF4 (I think) where the Carbines were available to all classes. They were just below the assault rifles in capability and any class could run with an M4, for example.
The solution isn't letting everybody pick whatever they want, the solution is making every gun class viable and having a particular category of weapons that all classes have access to. Battlefield is a game of knowing and playing your role, so stop listening and catering to the players who don't understand the core premise of Battlefield.
@Natetendo83The people that have always complained about weapons being locked to certain classes are also the ones that just want ridiculously overpowered loadouts. I also in my entire time of playing BF have never played a class specifically for the primary weapon outside of Recon when I want to snipe.
With BF4's system with cross class weapons too it makes it almost a moot point. You want range? DMR, you want CQ? Shotgun SMG. You want to larp as an assault? Carbines. That system was more than generous to satisfy people upset about primary selection.
To me you pick a class because of the role it plays in the game, and that role is determined by your gadget loadout. 2042 totally killed that because there is literally only 1 gadget slot, and it's not even specialized. Plus the whole specialist trait + gadget system gives even less freedom. Like maybe I want the wingsuit but not the weird * grenades? Not to mention limiting those mobility options to only 2 characters. Idk how the specialist system ever got past QA aside from DICE straight up ignoring their whole QA department.
The only reason I'd still be in favor of any weapon any class in the game in it's current state is because there are literally not enough weapons. Imagine being support and only having 2 guns to pick from lol.
@PartWeIsh One additional thought on individual Specialists:
Rao is not a recon, he's an engineer because he hacks vehicles with his anti-vehicle ability and his kit meshes well with an AT or AA rocket. Rao should be in the engineer category.
Boris should be assault not engineer as his kit is damage oriented and his turret doesn't damage vehicles so he makes no sense to be in the engineer category. I guess we could say Boris might fit in recon since his turret spots enemies if you really want to keep even class numbers (which isn't necessary).
@ragnarok013good points there. Also as i posted in my feedback comment a few pages back, they should swap Mackay with Paik. Mackay should be recon with his hook to get to sniper advantage locations, and Paik should be pushing the front line with the help of her wallhacks and storming enemy holds
@LargeSphynx wrote:@Natetendo83The people that have always complained about weapons being locked to certain classes are also the ones that just want ridiculously overpowered loadouts. I also in my entire time of playing BF have never played a class specifically for the primary weapon outside of Recon when I want to snipe.
With BF4's system with cross class weapons too it makes it almost a moot point. You want range? DMR, you want CQ? Shotgun SMG. You want to larp as an assault? Carbines. That system was more than generous to satisfy people upset about primary selection.
To me you pick a class because of the role it plays in the game, and that role is determined by your gadget loadout. 2042 totally killed that because there is literally only 1 gadget slot, and it's not even specialized. Plus the whole specialist trait + gadget system gives even less freedom. Like maybe I want the wingsuit but not the weird * grenades? Not to mention limiting those mobility options to only 2 characters. Idk how the specialist system ever got past QA aside from DICE straight up ignoring their whole QA department.The only reason I'd still be in favor of any weapon any class in the game in it's current state is because there are literally not enough weapons. Imagine being support and only having 2 guns to pick from lol.
Rao with a stinger is ridiculously op? Irish with ammo is ridiculously op?
What specialist/gadget combo are you referring to being ridiculously op?
@Natetendo83 wrote:
@Straatford87 wrote:What we've seen in the past is that locking weapons behind Classes means that players become locked to a Class that they might not want to play, just for a specific weapon. Our current thinking is return to Classes via Class Equipment and Gadgets while keeping weaponry available for all.
I don't know how to say this gently, so...people need to get over it and you guys need to stop relying so much on analytics on this one. If you free up weapons for all classes then you'll just have a handful of "meta" guns that everybody uses no matter what. Forcing guns into a specific class furthers the role of that class (such as suppressing fire from support LMGs) and forces the dev team to balance the weapons in such a way where different kinds of weapons are viable in specific scenarios.
If somebody only wants to play with an M16 and plays assault only...then so what? Let them do that. You don't need to overhaul a staple of your franchise just to appease to the complainers. Stick to what made the game popular in the first place. You struck the perfect balance in BF4 (I think) where the Carbines were available to all classes. They were just below the assault rifles in capability and any class could run with an M4, for example.
The solution isn't letting everybody pick whatever they want, the solution is making every gun class viable and having a particular category of weapons that all classes have access to. Battlefield is a game of knowing and playing your role, so stop listening and catering to the players who don't understand the core premise of Battlefield.
BFV and BF1 achieved this perfectly.
Each class had access to weapons that their class excelled at.
In BF1 when I saw an assault player approaching I knew that as a support with my long range lmg, I had the advantage, and they knew they had to try and flank me to get close enough to where they would have the advantage.
And in a squad I would cover flags from a distance while my squad mates approached to battle it out in close quarters.
Such a simple concept but it worked.
Each class knew their strengths and weaknesses and played accordingly.
Unrestricted weapons destroys all of that.
